Jesus the ventriloquist?

[Paul Christensen]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? All you have to do is read John 16. But there are many other passages which show that the Holy Spirit is the third Divine Person of the Godhead.

You are quite correct. When Peter asked Ananias, "Why did you lie to the Holy Spirit" of course he was referring to a Person. And what about when Paul and Barnabas were called to the ministry from Antioch when the Holy Spirit said, "Separate unto Me for the ministry to which I have called them."

And what about Jesus saying that when He goes He will send the Comforter who will be with them and lead them into all truth?

Sheesh! The guy must have got a bit of dust in his eyes when he viewed those sections of the Bible!

 

[Dcopymope]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? All you have to do is read John 16. But there are many other passages which show that the Holy Spirit is the third Divine Person of the Godhead.

I get what you mean since the Holy Spirit is referred to as a "he", especially in that chapter. However, a "person" is typically defined as something that operates on its own volition. The Holy Spirit is under the command and control of God, and doesn't act on its own accord.

 

[Paul Christensen]

I get what you mean since the Holy Spirit is referred to as a "he", especially in that chapter. However, a "person" is typically defined as something that operates on its own volition. The Holy Spirit is under the command and control of God, and doesn't act on its own accord.

But Jesus was the same! He said that He could do nothing except what the Father told Him. Does that mean that you are saying Jesus, because He was under the command and control of the Father, wasn't a person either?

Oh! Common sense, thou art a jewel!!!

 

[Dcopymope]

But Jesus was the same! He said that He could do nothing except what the Father told Him. Does that mean that you are saying Jesus, because He was under the command and control of the Father, wasn't a person either?

Oh! Common sense, thou art a jewel!!!

He could walk, talk, dance, eat, sleep, laugh, was a handy man as a carpenter, and he didn't need God tell him to do it. The Holy Spirit doesn't move an inch without Gods say so, Jesus did, unless we are claiming him to be an unthinking automaton. The context of doing what his Father told him to do was in relation to his mission on earth.

 

[Paul Christensen]

He could walk, talk, dance, eat, sleep, laugh, was a handy man as a carpenter, and he didn't need God tell him to do it. The Holy Spirit doesn't move an inch without Gods say so, Jesus did, unless we are claiming him to be an unthinking automaton. The context of doing what his Father told him to do was in relation to his mission on earth.

But one doesn't lie to a non-person, and a non-person cannot be grieved; also a non-person cannot speak as He did concerning Paul and Barnabas. Also a non-person does not inspire or teach anyone as the Scripture says He does.

 

[Brakelite]

We have to get away from the notion that the Holy Spirit is some sort of "mist" or "electricity", and not an actual invisible spirit person who comes to reside in us with our spirit (which is our real person who lives in our body).

I never said that. The Holy Spirit is living inside of converted Christians. He is not trying to escape! He is the one working within us to conform us to the image of Christ.

The party I disagreed with is the suggestion that "our spirit' is our real 'person'... As if it can be separated from the body and continue to be that 'real person'. I have seen no evidence of that in the Bible.

 

[Brakelite]

Well, the holy spirit is never described as a "person", which is the problem.

Which is partly why I have reservations regarding the current church's portrayal of a three in one trinitarian definition describing three persons. Yet on the other hand, the holy Spirit is described in the Bible as having personal attributes. But yeah.. I can see where you are coming from. Like I said earlier, we see a little then start making assumptions. On most things assumptions don't matter a great deal... But we are talking about the Almighty here... Holy ground... Best to be careful.

 

[Paul Christensen]

The party I disagreed with is the suggestion that "our spirit' is our real 'person'... As if it can be separated from the body and continue to be that 'real person'. I have seen no evidence of that in the Bible.

So what is your theory about what happens to a converted Christian when he or she dies?

 

[Paul Christensen]

Which is partly why I have reservations regarding the current church's portrayal of a three in one trinitarian definition describing three persons. Yet on the other hand, the holy Spirit is described in the Bible as having personal attributes. But yeah.. I can see where you are coming from. Like I said earlier, we see a little then start making assumptions. On most things assumptions don't matter a great deal... But we are talking about the Almighty here... Holy ground... Best to be careful.

I hold to the Nicene Creed, which is the foundation of the Christian church.

 

[DNB]

Yes, I meant God, have to be more careful about editing my own typing. Even there, it came up as topping my own tipping.
I agree with the rest. If God had intended we understand His nature, He may have granted us a great deal more detail. I do believe in a Trinity. However, I think the church has gone too far in attempting to define it, way too far in demanding our acceptance of the church's definition, and way way too far in persecuting those who don't.
From my reading of scripture I notice the the Spirit of God suggests ownership. Yet we also read that the Spirit can be poured out... Be grieved.... Be blasphemed... Be obeyed... We can be led, inspired, and filled by the Spirit. And more. There appears to be a great deal of multi tasking going on here. And yet we are also told that God ministers to mankind through His angels. We can get confused I think between the work of angels and that of the holy Spirit. It may even be a combination of both. But the actual nature of the holy Spirit and how it's... His? Union with the Father and Son is realised, is not revealed, and I think we ought not go down that path.
As for the Father and Son, that more simple. Is Jesus deity? If course. He is His Father's Son. The same Divine nature which the Son inherited. There is nothing the Father has that the Son wasnt given. Except as was said previously, rank. It appears that Jesus deferred constantly to the Father as being His Superior in rank and authority. And Corinthians reveals that after the Father has put all Christ's enemies under his feet, then Christ once again gives the kingdom into the hands of the Father that the Father may continue to rule and reign over all. That where I am at the moment. I'm reluctant to venture too much deeper... Yes, there are some more truth revealed but I don't think it changes what I have testified to above.

Just for the sake of clarifying my position, and for the reasons that I gave in my previous post, I would not tread on the incomprehensible. One must realize that what they define in their doctrines, reveals a great deal about their esteem of God. i.e. how He chose to reveal his Word, and implement His Judicial system (appeasing Himself from His own wrath).

From a comprehensive view of Scripture, we do not extrapolate that the Holy Spirit is an autonomous entity, but simply a bestowal of God's holiness onto a recipient (for God is Holy, and He's a Spirit). The Holy Spirit does not speak on it's own, or move on it's own, but inspires those who have received it to act in a Holy manner. Thus, this is the personification, and the motivation, ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

God does not propagate or engender a species of His own genus. He cannot be extended, nor duplicated, nor multiplied. His own being encompasses the entire universe, and thus, there is no room or purpose for another, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being. Jesus Christ was not a progeny of God, nor a deity of any degree. But rather, he was an offspring of his mother Mary, who was miraculously impregnated by God's power, namely, the Holy Spirit.

 

[Paul Christensen]

Just for the sake of clarifying my position, and for the reasons that I gave in my previous post, I would not tread on the incomprehensible. One must realize that what they define in their doctrines, reveals a great deal about their esteem of God. i.e. how He chose to reveal his Word, and implement His Judicial system (appeasing Himself from His own wrath).

From a comprehensive view of Scripture, we do not extrapolate that the Holy Spirit is an autonomous entity, but simply a bestowal of God's holiness onto a recipient (for God is Holy, and He's a Spirit). The Holy Spirit does not speak on it's own, or move on it's own, but inspires those who have received it to act in a Holy manner. Thus, this is the personification, and the motivation, ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

God does not propagate or engender a species of His own genus. He cannot be extended, nor duplicated, nor multiplied. His own being encompasses the entire universe, and thus, there is no room or purpose for another, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being. Jesus Christ was not a progeny of God, nor a deity of any degree. But rather, he was an offspring of his mother Mary, who was miraculously impregnated by God's power, namely, the Holy Spirit.

What you are giving is JW and Mormon doctrine, and a denial of the Nicene Creed, which is the corner stone of genuine Christianity.

 

[Brakelite]

So what is your theory about what happens to a converted Christian when he or she dies?

What does the Bible say about creation... The manner in which we were made? Just reverse it.

 

[Brakelite]

I hold to the Nicene Creed, which is the foundation of the Christian church.

Okay.

 

[DNB]

There are one or two questions I have about the trinity.
How come the Hebrew word for God is a plural?
Why did God say when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, "they have become like us, knowing good and evil". Who is the "us", and who was God speaking to?
When Jesus was baptised, whose was the voice from heaven that said, "This is my beloved Son"? And, what was the bodily form that descended on Jesus from we don't know where?
Is the Holy Spirit, God?
Is Jesus God?
Is the Father God?
How do we explain that?
When Jesus was transfigured, whose was the voice from heaven that said, "This is my beloved Son. Listen to Him."
When Mary met Jesus after His resurrection, why did Jesus tell Mary not to touch Him because He had not yet ascended to the Father?
How come Jesus said that He did only the will of His Father?
Why did John say, "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ"?
Why did Paul say, "That I might know you, the only true God, and Jesus whom you have sent?"
If Jesus isn't God, how come He was able to take upon Himself the eternal wrath of God for every single soul who received Christ, past, present and future, within just the three hours He hung on the cross before He died?
How come the Father is a spirit, and no man has ever seen Him, and yet Jesus, as God, is a man that everyone could see clearly?
Who was Jesus crying out to when He said, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?" And when He said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit".
If the Father is invisible and cannot be seen, who was the fourth person in the fiery furnace with the three young Hebrew men, and was described as someone who looked like "the Son of God?"
And, the Father being invisible, who was the Lord whom Isaiah saw high and lifted up and said, "I am undone"?
Why does the Scripture say that a person who has the Holy Spirit, has Jesus and the Father as well? Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is God as well?
If so, then we have to accept that the Holy Spirit is separate from the Father and Jesus, because Jesus told His disciples that when He goes, He will send the Holy Spirit to be in them, and He will teach them all things they need to know.

I think there is only one way to satisfactorily answer these questions - that God is plural, and is in the persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This means that the Scripture is very clear about the trinity, even though it does not use the word, or to define it as such. But it makes is very clear that there are three separate Persons that are identified as God.

You know that that was more than 'one or two questions' about the trinity?

Either way, here's the point...
1. From nowhere in Scripture does one read the words or expressions 'trinity', 'triune', 'three in one', 'two in one' (natures of Christ), 'God the Son', 'God the Holy Spirit', 'incarnation', 'god-man', ....
2. From nowhere in Scripture has any of the main characters, those closest to God, ever prayed utilizing a triune expression, none of their doxologies employed a trinitarian formula. In the New Testament, not one conversion narrative included a trinitarian statement. Peter, Paul or any other Apostle or Disciple, before the Sanhedrin or authorities, ever accused them of crucifying God, or that they preach God raised from the dead. Nowhere in the Book of Revelation (all heavenly hosts in their exalted states), even mentions the Holy Spirit.
3. Not one of the trinitarian leading proponents, can explain what their exegesis has concluded. Either God or Jesus' ontology, or the atonement. Every time that they speak to defend the doctrine, they are obligated to capitulate their rationale, and appeal to mystery.
4. Not one of your leading proponents have ever asserted that the trinity, is an explicitly taught Biblical revelation. But, on the contrary, they all have included that it's been inferred.

In other words Paul, all the points that you brought up were complete eiseges, you do realize that, right?
Not one of your points, in and of them self, teach or even imply, what you concluded. The practice that you employed, was the quintessence of eisegesis and inference, not one was didactic or explicit.
Thus, do not even try to tell me that God has revealed the most enigmatic, incomprehensible, and implausible, doctrine in all of Christendom, in the manner that either, you just displayed, or that has been defended by any of your major trinitarian proponents and theologians.

 

[DNB]

What you are giving is JW and Mormon doctrine, and a denial of the Nicene Creed, which is the corner stone of genuine Christianity.

You don't know your theologies very well. Any denial of trinitarian thought, does not by necessity imply JS or LDS.
You're beginning to sound extremely frivolous?

Your authority is the council of Nicaea, and all those that attended?
You're beginning to sound extremely misguided, impressionable, and obviously, heretical (you put Nicaea either equal to, or above Scripture?).

 

[Jane_Doe22]

We need to be careful that we don't stray into Jehovah's witnesses or Mormon theology concerning Jesus and the Holy Spirit; or the Oneness Pentecostals who recognise Jesus only as God, and subscribe to Modalism in saying that God reveals Himself in three different modes - sometimes in the mode of the Father, other times in the mode of Jesus, and still other times in the mode of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not saying this is what you are doing at all, but just putting up a warning sign that we don't stray off what the Scripture actually says. In fact, the nature and character of God is in many ways a mystery and we know only partially. The Scripture clearly points out that there is a Father, and a Son who came to the world as Jesus Christ, and a Holy Spirit whom Jesus sent to be with and in us until He comes again. How that all fits together is something we cannot perfectly know. We just have to take the Word of Scripture for it.

We have to get away from the notion that the Holy Spirit is some sort of "mist" or "electricity", and not an actual invisible spirit person who comes to reside in us with our spirit (which is our real person who lives in our body). He is not some sort of "presence" that "hovers" over believers in a church service, as some have asked Him to do. One preacher said we don't want Him to just "hover" but to land! But really, He lives in us. Therefore when we come to church, we bring the Holy Spirit with us. If no believers were present, the Holy Spirit wouldn't be there either. "Holy" buildings where the Holy Spirit resides is just fantasy. He doesn't live in buildings, but in converted believers. This means that people don't have to be "hyped up" to achieve a Holy Spirit atmosphere, because when they walk in they bring the atmosphere with them. They actually are the atmosphere, and the Holy Spirit works through the contribution they make to the services. The problem with many is they are just passive pew-sitters silently observing the performance up the front, and so the Holy Spirit can do very little through them. That's why many churches are just cold monuments with very little of the Holy Spirit working in them, because most of the people in the services are doing nothing to enable the Holy Spirit to work with them.

For the record: LDS Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons in one God.

And the Nicine Creed is not scripture nor not the foundation If Christianity.

 

[Paul Christensen]

You know that that was more than 'one or two questions' about the trinity?

Either way, here's the point...
1. From nowhere in Scripture does one read the words or expressions 'trinity', 'triune', 'three in one', 'two in one' (natures of Christ), 'God the Son', 'God the Holy Spirit', 'incarnation', 'god-man', ....
2. From nowhere in Scripture has any of the main characters, those closest to God, ever prayed utilizing a triune expression, none of their doxologies employed a trinitarian formula. In the New Testament, not one conversion narrative included a trinitarian statement. Peter, Paul or any other Apostle or Disciple, before the Sanhedrin or authorities, ever accused them of crucifying God, or that they preach God raised from the dead. Nowhere in the Book of Revelation (all heavenly hosts in their exalted states), even mentions the Holy Spirit.
3. Not one of the trinitarian leading proponents, can explain what their exegesis has concluded. Either God or Jesus' ontology, or the atonement. Every time that they speak to defend the doctrine, they are obligated to capitulate their rationale, and appeal to mystery.
4. Not one of your leading proponents have ever asserted that the trinity, is an explicitly taught Biblical revelation. But, on the contrary, they all have included that it's been inferred.

In other words Paul, all the points that you brought up were complete eiseges, you do realize that, right?
Not one of your points, in and of them self, teach or even imply, what you concluded. The practice that you employed, was the quintessence of eisegesis and inference, not one was didactic or explicit.
Thus, do not even try to tell me that God has revealed the most enigmatic, incomprehensible, and implausible, doctrine in all of Christendom, in the manner that either, you just displayed, or that has been defended by any of your major trinitarian proponents and theologians.

Your answers remind me of answers given by politicians when asked specific questions. They never directly answer the interviewer's question. They sidestep and carry on with their own point of view.

Your answer reflect that you don't really know how to answer my questions and in spite of the clear implication given by the points I have quoted in my questions, you insist on giving your own theological view regardless.

Just like a politician who doesn't want to give direct answers to direct questions. Or like an English lecturer I knew when I was at university. Even if one asked him the time, he would give a vague answer!

 

[Paul Christensen]

You don't know your theologies very well. Any denial of trinitarian thought, does not by necessity imply JS or LDS.
You're beginning to sound extremely frivolous?

Your authority is the council of Nicaea, and all those that attended?
You're beginning to sound extremely misguided, impressionable, and obviously, heretical (you put Nicaea either equal to, or above Scripture?).

No, I don't know enough about theology - I only gained an M.Div, and didn't go on to do a PhD. So I come a little short in that department!

Actually, my questions in my previous post are based on what the Scripture actually says, not any personal theory of my own.

Also, Jesus clearly referred to Himself as God and gave that distinct impression to the degree that it was the main reason why the Jewish leaders wanted Him killed. If Jesus referred to Himself as God, then he was either a lying lunatic, or exactly who He said He was.

 

[Paul Christensen]

For the record: LDS Christians believe that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three different persons in one God.

And the Nicine Creed is not scripture nor not the foundation If Christianity.

That's strange, because I have had Mormons tells me that they don't believe in the deity of Jesus - that He is the created Son of God and not the eternal God who has no beginning nor end.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

That's strange, because I have had Mormons tells me that they don't believe in the deity of Jesus - that He is the created Son of God and not the eternal God who has no beginning nor end.

Nonsense.

He is the Son of God, always has been, always will be.

(Aside: LDS Christians have a lot of misconceptions about Nicene Christians, just like the vise versa).